340 officials in the local administration was a logical measure. Through the promulgation of the Voinskii Ustav and the Kratkoe izobrazhenic protsessov, the military forces were expressly placed under military jurisdiction and thus removed fromthe jurisdiction of the civil courts. It was essential that the civil courts, which were closely connected with the military commanders in the provinces, study the military procedural rules in order to avoid controversies over jurisdiction between civil and military courts. This point was made by the Soviet legal historian P. S. Romashkin, who also presented a number of convincing arguments to the effect that the ukaz of April 10, 1716 did not extend the application of the Kratkoe izobrazhenie protsessov to the civilian courts.^"*® Among other things, the case materials from the iustits-kollegiia and the Moscow court of appeals, which Romashkin studied for the period 1719 to 1725, show that the Voennyi Ustav was not applied in any of the cases. Instead, the Ulozbenie of 1649 and later ukazes, including the ukaz on the introduction of inquisitorial procedure of 1697, formed the basis for the decisions of the courts in these cases.Furthermore, Romashkin pointed out that, aside fromthe ukaz of April 10, 1716, no legislation passed during Peter’s reign in any way supports the idea that the Kratkoe izobrazhenie protsessov was applied to civilian cases.On the contrary, repeated ukazes issued by the iustits-kollegiia testify to the fact that the Ulozhenie of 1649 and subsequent ukazes {novosostoiateVnye ukazy) continued to serve as procedural norms for the civilian courts.Likewise, the Magistracy Regulation of 1721 stipulated that “one shall carefully see to it that everywhere in the magistracies sud and rozysk are conducted correctly in the cases in accordance with the Ulozhenie and His Majesty’s ukazes. The materials left by the commission on the laws of 1720 also provides support for the opinion that the Ulozhenie of 1649 continued to serve as the foundation for procedural legislation. A study of the first chapter (“On the investigation of crimes and according to which procedure one is to proceed in them”) of the criminal law section of the draft produced by that commission, a chapter containing the general rules for the conduct of trials in criminal cases, reveals that the Kratkoe izobrazhenie protsessov is never referred to as a source. Instead, that chapter was drawn up ” 150 P. S. Romashkin, “Vopros o primenenii voinskikh artikulov Petra I v obshchikh sudakh,” Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, no. 2 (1948), 3—12; idem, Osnovnye nachala ugolovnogo i voenno-ugolovnogo zakonodatcVstva Petra I (Moscow, 1947), 26—28. Neither Man’kov nor Wortman mention Romashkin’s works or take a stand on them. 146 Romashkin (1948), 7—8. Ibid., 6. PSZ, V, no. 3,376, p. 700; no. 3,435, p. 737. >50 PS2, VI, no. 3,708, p. 296. 146
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=